Kodak will bring back Ektachrome film this year, start selling it in 2018

Kodak first announced its plans to bring Ektachrome 35mm film back from the dead in January at CES. But if you were worried that the announcement was just a lot of marketing hype, you have nothing to fear: it seems the resurrection of Ektachrome is proceeding apace, with full production scheduled for 2018.

This news broke over Twitter, of all places, thanks to an inquisitive Kodak fan named Karen Wink. She asked Kodak what the ETA on the Ektachrome comeback was, to which Kodak replied:

We're working towards having limited supply of Ektachrome film available for market testing by year end with availability in 2018

Comments

Why does everybody come back to the discussion film vs digital? I have been shooting film since I was about 8 yrs old and I am still fine with the proces (mainly B&W, but also color on Velvia). I like a camera where the only thing you do is focus, chose DOF by choosing a f and adjust the time. I do not have to film with it, use it as a telephone, mailservice etc. I use my smartphone for that. Please get back to wether or not Ektachrome revival is a useful addition to the possibilities of current photography.

Fuji, that green stuff?The most neutral colour transparency film ever was Agfa RSX. Either 100, or 50 ASA, there was nothing better ever for colour fidelity. In Europe, publishers often requested originals to be shot on RSX. (Agfachrome) I was reproducing artwork for publication. I even had other artists requesting sets of 35mm slides shot on RSX 50 for their presentations.You may recall that Ektachrome in its previous life was offered in different types. All were different again from Fuji's offering. And NONE were as good as RSX for absolute colour neutrality.

Many years ago I was a consultant to Eastman Kodak's Digital Science Division. I politely told them they were clueless as to the direction of digital development and were headed for bankruptcy. They said verbatim, "We're Kodak and we know what we are doing."

A few years later they commissioned me to help develop the GUI for the re-designed LVT film recorder.

This scheme to re-introduce film is as insane as Polaroid introducing instant movie film when affordable home video cameras were being introduced.

Hey Kodak! Introduce a full frame 24X36 universal digital sensor pack that will fit in every 35mm SLR ever made. Now that will fly!

@BadScience .... Very well said. Succinct observations about the hipsters.

I honestly can't stand them.

They're just a clueless movement of mostly affluent social progressives, predominantly their 30's & 40's. Here in Sydney they are all concentrated in the inner city districts close to the CBD. You won't find them in working class or poorer areas. They're nearly all (what we in Australia) know as 'lefties'.

I can't work out what they stand for, nor what their purpose is. My friends just call them a post modernist cultural reaction.

YEE PEE! AND AFTER 48 YEARS IN STORAGE, you can watch them dissolve before your eyes! While in Viet Nam Combat, I shot about 4000 Ektachrome slides, come home, put then away in a "cool, dry, place, then a year ago I dig them out to show folks, and they were unviewable! No thanks I'm sticking with my new digital camera!

Yes I did that for years and then I started shooting digitally once good digital cameras were available. I never looked back and sold my film cameras and gave away my color darkroom. I still have two film scanners kicking around

Clients are not going to pay to have hundreds of photos scanned that may be needed for a comprehensive project. The time involved makes it a no-go too. In making the transition from film to digital I did not have one client who stated a preference to keep shooting on film.

There is no such thing as a "film look" in my mind. A photo is simply what you envision the photograph to be and what you make it to be. I think the numerous limitations in using film are terrible and the images from digital are much better and can be made to look any way I like.

They are only going to scan the one(s) they use. We use to just lay them out out a light table and pick the best ones. We were drum scanning the chromes used in the ads in the late 80s so it's nothing new.

BUT, I'm still not sure why anyone wants to shoot Ektachrome. B&W film I can see. It's still an art form with development and darkroom techniques and prints and all. But Ektachrome? Ok. We'll see.

They will need to use dozens or hundreds because now that marketing is done on the web, clients fill it with photos. Plus they want all of the "proofs" on-line in the future in case they want to substitute images or use some other shots at a later time. I know this for sure because I maintain the photo galleries for my clients.

Besides, they don't have a light box and certainly don't want to bring all of the decision makers into one room to try to look through loupes and choose the images. They want all the images on a web gallery so that the ad agency and execs at the company can independently view the images. (They may be hundreds of miles apart.)

Now if only they (Kodak or some one else) would make 35mm film communicate with the lab, so a photo that was deliberately overexposed say 1.5 EV would not automatically become underexposed when the print is made. Just like it was (is ?) with APS film.

If Kodak wants to be more relevant to the market place of today (PhotoShop super saturated colors) they might want to consider reissuing Ektachrome X. I loved that stuff, Kodak had such a good eye for just how far to go and Ektachrome X was the bomb.

creative photographers always prefer film as the prints in the art gallery stir hearts. nothing matches a print's authenticity and charm exposed with projected light through emulsions of color and shades created by the organic reaction to light. Even a polaroid shot makes its way to the wall and remain there for decades. there will always be film as long as creativity lives. Digital photography is for commercial use, cost less and fast output but lacks in realistic detail

I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the notion that digital photography is just for commercial use or lacks realistic detail. What I'm doing now creatively with digital goes beyond what I could do with film. The detail can be as realistic as I want it to be. I'm not saying I dislike film. I've shot a lot of Kodachrome and Ektachrome over decades with good results, but I'm astounded by what I can do with digital and for me it's opened doors to greater creativity.

@Don KarnerKodak is more involved in digital solutions. This is just for fun because there is a small demand and the machinery is there. No research is required. Turn the power on, put the recipes in and voila ektachrome comes out. I wish they make medium format as well

Once you see a quality Cibachrome print from Velvia straight from an old school enlarger, all inkjet prints and digital continuous tone prints made these days look absolutely dull and lifeless in comparison. And I just seen some Cibachrome prints over the weekend.

I did Beta testing of Cibachrome in 1971 at RIT. Then I owned a custom color lab and made Cibachrome prints. I used "old school enlargers" from Omega, Beseler, Leitz, Durst, and others. I also made dye transfer prints.

Ciba is very contrasty, difficult and limited. It is no longer available. Neither is dye transfer. So what is your option for printing from transparencies?

@AlanGHi Alan. I had a freind in beirut who printed my ilfochromes for 20 years unlil the late 2000s. Today it is not as visible commercially but in every major city it is possible to find at least one private developer. Ciba-lab is online. andrea rontini is another in rome that provides the service and roland dufau in paris. You can find others searching by city. For example: ilfochrome cibachrome berlin etc. If the shots are well exposed and focused (or well defocused intentionally) the print comes out unsurpassed. Slight softness in the shot due to low quality optics or focus and u get an ugly result. Another method is to drum scan and print on high end inkjet glossy archival paper.

@BadScienceMost fashion, still life, food and portrait photographers r crossing over film look and grain digital manipulations plugins before output. Open a few of the most prestigious magazines n u'll see it. film look is culture and tradition. Your totalitarian opinion is repetitively denying the reality of a diverse appreciation calling it nonesense and jibberish. You get irritated by what you dislike to the point of condemning its qualities and calling fools the people who appreciate it. This is a totalitarian opinion.

> Once you see a quality Cibachrome print from Velvia straight from an old school enlarger, all inkjet prints and digital continuous tone prints made these days look absolutely dull and lifeless in comparison. And I just seen some Cibachrome prints over the weekend.

Can't see a reason for 'ekachriome' sales either ;)Although slide film has a unique aspect compared to other formats... there is no need for any post-processing. When the film is developed, its slides can be projected right away on a screen, which is fun I think.

I still take Velvia slide pictures and still love the results, despite having a Fujifilm X-E1. Yes, digital is light years more versatile and I have plenty of fun with digital, but ultimately the colors and tones of film still are still great. Just too darned bad can't print them on Cibachrome. Film isn't the limiting factor, it's the output.

Film photography was mostly daylight photography, This article does not say what film speed they will be reissuing probably ASA 100. Exposure latitude of < 1 stop - better get the exposure right. Lets say digital photographers are spoiled with ISO of 800-1600-10000 shot 100 images at least one will be good.

I always found Extachrome to be flatter than Kodachrome ASA 25/64! I would bet that Kodachrome in particular could out resolve any 50M sensor. But as one of the other comments said without equal print processes i.e. cibachrome it is a little pointless.

One place where sliver photography still exists is at Walmat those $0.12 prints are sliver prints. The last generation of photo printers of the film era scanned the film first, applied digital color correction before imaging them on the prints - these printers now just drop out the scanning step.

"would bet that Kodachrome in particular could out resolve any 50M sensor."

not a 35mm film. Nowhere near.

There are claims that 35mm film has a measure of 140 MP; but this is a measure of "data". But does not discriminate between resolved detail and grain. Its all "data". Resolved detail is of the order of 10-15 MP.

In other words, taking a photo of a 15+MP image on 35mm film will result in a loss of detail.

When I travel, I shoot slides. Back home, I invite friends to my home. The place is always packed and people are fascinated. Among them are photographers and film makers and they love the colors and the plasticity of the images. Those eveningsare the reason why I have all the Velvias and Provias in the fridge. Plus, I love to walk around in areas where I would definitely feel uncomfortable with expensive gear. If somebody steels my film camera, a maximum of 36 images is lost, and not too much money.

Not many places are going to be able to process it these days. Lucky ive got a student area which has a good real photoshop they do great scans. i like digital but like doing film it has a differnt texture and feel.

i shoot film with two of the better cameras; Nikon F6 and Mamiya RZ67 ProII. The F6 is still produced by Nikon, although it reasonably expensive ($2,500 USD). Also the F6 uses the Nikon CLS for flash control.

Hmm I have a 1977 Datsun 280z and a 1977 Honda civic, in addition to a modern car. It's not because I can't afford a new car, as obviously I own one. But there is something fun about owning and driving a 40 year old car that a new car can't duplicate.

I like to read real paper books. And - they're really cheap if you buy second hand :) and they look as good as new.Every once in a while its a time when I buy a camera for film. Then I take one month for 36 exposures... and wait ... and wait and sell my cam again :)

Hmmm, many people treasure old cars precisely because they are so different from the characterless, cookie-cutter, electronic-filled suburban crossovers that plague American suburbia. You have to really want and be able to maintain an old car to use one regularly. It is the same with film cameras: you need to have the passion and interest (and ability, whose lack thereof may be what drives so many haters here). Cost is not the issue.

@photogeek: Kodachrome processing required a very expensive plant and highly trained personnel to run it. (The rumor was that Kodak hired ChemE PhD's.) The start-up costs to reintroduce Kodachrome would be enormous.The reason is that the dyes to make a Kodachrome image be a color one were added in the processing at the plant. Kodachrome film itself was just B&W. Ektachrome has the dyes incorporated in the film itself - the processing just activates them, which is why you can do it in your kitchen sink.

I home-printed about 125 cibachrome prints and taught many others in our club, but it always remained hard work to make 8 fine prints in 2 full days. Worse was that there were only very limited possibilities to make adjustments in lightness, not to mention contrast or colors. I only could print slides with low contrast. I thank whoever up above for digital although the prints will outlive me for decades when stored in the dark.(Stored in the light of a living room they fade very badly. I tested that over more than a decade with some prints)

I have here 30 year old Cibachrome prints (ilford) that stil look perfect, no fading colors here. When i made them (with a jobo drum) it always was fascinating to take them out of the drum where the chemicals lay over the ciba in a kind of foam. But out of the drum and cleaned it was always a surprise how beatiful these Ciba's looked. We used them for displays with (TL) light to show them for 12-14 hours a day, and even after years the colors remain perfect.

I bring up Cibachrome because I just had the opportunity to view some 30x40" or so Cibachrome prints of fall leaves just last weekend. I have to say those Cibachrome prints in 2017 just absolutely and positively kicked inkjet printers and digital continuous tone prints *** all over town. I've seen plenty of inkjet prints, none of the colors looked nearly as good as the Cibachrome prints I've seen. Now I have to go out and attempt to find some print tech that comes even close to what I saw.

i'm honestly considering getting a film SLR camera to play around with now that film seems to be coming back... even if it's just for a short time (a few years before it might die off again) at least I'll have had the chance to shoot film on a film SLR (I always had the cheapy point and shoot film cameras--never a nice film camera, and certainly not an SLR). In fact, I'm glad that many schools who teach photography start people out with B&W and film photography first before they can even use a digital camera. makes on really think about their captures more because each click on a film camera is money you've basically just spend. Not like digital where we can discard it and try again (well you can with film, but it would get expensive after a while). One of my friends had to use an old SLR film camera for her first photography class, and the second class, all pictures had to be in B&W, once they mastered exposure and basic compositional elements using a manual film camera.

Do it right. Get an old SLR with a mechanically timed shutter and don't use the meter - no batteries. Buy a hand held meter, figure the exposure in your head. Learn a dying art. You know, like writing long hand.

My father actually has an old Olympus 35mm SLR (somewhere... the keyword is SOMEWHERE in his boxed of old stuff...) He's even said I could just have it when it is found. And it's a camera that wasn't used much, except for special family.occasions or vacations. I'm also interested in the lenses he has for it too (he said he had a 50mm, and I think also an 80mm and a 35mm--I might also try to find an adapter to adapt them to my Nikon...)

You are so rite, Olympus film cameras were considered the Leica's of Japan back in their hay days. They had the OM-1 designed by the great Mitani, then came then OM-2, OM-3 (pure mechanical without battery to run it) and the last King of the line OM-4,OM-4T and the last of the Mohegan's OM-4Ti. You can probably pick them up on the cheap on Amazon or Ebay with their great lenses to rival the other giants then & now Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax..So yes I miss the Slide & Film heydays. But I can assure that I will start using the Ektachrome slide film again. It brings out the joy of yesteryear for me.I enjoy the thinking process of the time & F-Stop calculations. Oh well here to Slides & Film again for the immediate Kodak future :)

If you're lucky, it's and OM1 or OM2, the most beautiful camera ever made (same body shell, just a change to the switch and the ASA selector knob). If you're unlucky, it's the plasticy OM10 or one of the later variants.

I'm going to have to figure out where the thing is (ie. start going through boxes). Luckily, he still has it (somewhere). Unfortunately, he lives in a different state so this probably won't be done for quite some time (at least not until Christmas or Thanksgiving probably, at the earliest).

Hipsters are likely your kids, no worse or different then when we had bell bottom jeans, beads, black lights...haha...young people are no different from one year to the next, styles change, but attitudes don't. Adults have to learn to suck it up, lol!

steve - these hispter tw@ts are in their 30 and 40s; they are not kids. How many teenage hipsters have you seen? Hipsters are middle class and rich and have rich hobbies and tastes and live in expensive trendy parts of liberal college cities. They support the liberal establishment.

So attitudes do change; the current hipster movement is diametrically opposed to youth movements of the past which were about having fun with no money, pushing boundaries, not retreating into them, rebelling against the establishment and the ideas held by old farts in their 30s. About dossing on sofas in the suburbs and bunking the train into town; not living in flashy lofts and supping £10 coffees. They were about clothes and music that old gits in their 30s and 40s wouldn't be seen dead in.

Truly analog videographers would need to purchase my fully mechanical Bolex D8L. It shoots as long as it is wound up or it runs through it's 50Feet of 8mm stock, but then I guess they would be called cinematographers rather than videographers.

IIt may look like film, but scanning (and photoshop) kills the magic of film photography... If the idea is just to have the "film look", then you should better shoot digital and add the film look in postprocessing (eg. with DxOMark FilmPack).

If anyone thinks dxo film packs and other software look like film, handle lighting and contrast transitions like film...then they should not be discussing scanner issues. Software does not make digital look like film. I see no magic lost. I shoot some b&w, process it myself, and do a high rez scan and output to a 16bit Piezographic print. All the magic has always been there for me...and my clients.

With black and white, you don't have to scan it, you can make real prints in a darkroom and if you want to share the images, you scan the print on a good flatbed. In the past ten years and between film, film gear, darkroom equipment and a new house to build a fine art darkroom in, I have spent north of a quarter million dollars.

I would not have done that if I did not enjoy the process as much as I do and now realize the income I do from it. Film is no passing fad folks, people want full authorship to their photographs and nothing does that like film and the darkroom.

@The Davinator: Have to disagree a bit. There's a big difference between viewing B&W on a computer screen and a true silver halide print. A great paper silver print, printed well, can really take one's breath away in a way that a digital print, as good as those can now be, simply can't.

idm, just guessing: you shoot bw film right (typical scanning kill the magic mantra)? believe me, scanning film is something different, also playing with good prints etc. and again: all techniques, found from the start of the Photoshop, derives from analogue work of manipulating photo medium (you also manipulating results in traditional way by different exposures of film paper etc)and no, it's no the same just using some digital filters to add noise etc.

@terence sure 4x5 film must produce amazing detail... But film can't compare with digital when it comes to dynamic range... Film won't exceed 10 stops DR...@The Davinator these Piezographic b&w prints sound very interesting, but you will probably get the most impresive results when the source is digital...@Edmond In my opinion, RAW coming out of a good camera will contain the maximum quantity of information, film is degraded quality version of it... Nevertheless this degraded quality can look nice... @Darkroom_Fine_Art_Pro This is what could admire, a fully analogue process... @mr.izo I don't shoot bw film, but admire people who do it and use a dark room. I fully agree, photo manipulation started with analogue photography, I saw some very interesting work...

In your opinion only. Just because I scan the film, does not make it pointless, how the hell am I supposed to share my images with the worldwide community if I can't scan the film and put it online? Only people that can afford darkrooms and gallery spaces deserve the honour of film photography? Your post is so annoyingly bitter and snobbish.

Do you have any link to a serious study showing a 18 dynamic range with film? Yes, it is a question of opinions... but scanned film isn't film photography anymore... Maybe it could be named "hybrid photography"?

I would like to retract the "pointless" adjective... The point for everyone is either to get satisfaction or earn money with their photography activity...

Please read the last comment posted by Mazenmazen... It's so poetic...

Are these 18 shades of grey displayed a serious study? For digital, the dynamic range refers to each pixel... I imagine that for film, that does not have pixels, you must consider a reference resolution in order to calculate a dynamic range... If you consider a lower resolution, DR will improve... It would be similar for digital, if you group the pixels 4 by 4 (1 fourth of the resolution), your DR will improve as well...

IdM " but scanned film isn't film photography anymore... Maybe it could be named "hybrid photography"?"

You don't provide any thought process or reasoning for this, please enlighten us if you can. Why do you think that film, shot on a camera stops being photography when that image is then scanned and digitized? surely by the logic you have provided us - digital photography isn't photography at all?

Well, my idea wasn't to cause so much controversy... And all this is mainly about opinions, not knowledge... Let me try to close the subject...

Many people think that film photography is more pure, that it represents the true photography art... Despite I am a purely digital photographer (Pentax 645z/Sony RX1R), I have a lot of respect for people who shoot film and obtain prints using a fully analogue/chemical process... My initial comment meant to say that this pureness is lost when you scan a film/slide and start processing the image digitally... I retracted the "pointless" adjective, as a hybrid process (film/scan/digital processing) may allow to obtain different and beautiful images... (and as Davinator says, a look that can't be obtained using DxOMark Film Pack)

However, and except if you consider large format film (e.g. 4x5"), digital is beating film regarding DR and resolution... Obviously, DR isn't the most important aspect that will generate emotion when looking at a photo...

I take DR with a grain of salt, film or digital. I was shooting a landscape that had a partial eclipse in the top. I used a 3 stop ND grad to pull it back to keep the scene of Canyonlands below. A contrail had slid over the sun right when the eclipse was peaking and at first, I was ticked. Then a great shadow line came out of the contrail blocking and it helped to reduce contrast, make the top more interesting. I shot a Nikon D810, Hasselblad with Acros 100 black and white film and in 4x5 using Tmax 100….

...I then got home and worked up the various D810 exposures in post and none of them would render the form of the eclipse and the landscape, it was not even close. I then developed half the Tmax 100 and it too was just out of range. Then I did compensating development of the rest of the Tmax and it was just barely out, still no usable image. So with one last roll of film to develop, I decided to use a highly dilute development of Rodinal at a ratio of 1:200 and developed the film for 25 minutes with gentle agitation. It came out, I could print the image using grade 2, did a highlight burn on the sun, dodged the landscape at grade 3 and burned in at grade 5 overall to increase broad contrast.

@Darkroom - That is how Bruce Barnbaum first photographed in Antelope Canyon. Google his images. He was interviewed years ago talking about his first trips there. Using 4x5 film, he used dilute solutions of two bath developers to get the whole range in...around 16 stops or so. No digital can do that yet. That is back in 1980.

Because as digital reaches the point of somewhat diminishing returns in terms tech and film has simply not gone away, people are looking to explore other ways of arriving at a finished image. There is a to-the-point journey in working with film that makes it photography and nothing else. It's kind of like the difference between playing an acoustic guitar or the acoustic guitar setting on Garage Band. One is many things and the other is one thing only...and is literally acoustic.

People of all ages have found a very rewarding and singular journey in using film and a result that speaks directly to that outcome, especially in using black and white film with the follow through of a silver gelatin print in the darkroom. This has nothing to do with hipsters or fads, it is an art form and with the prospect anyone being able to make photos with digital with a lot of the credit going to the camera companies and software developers, film and the darkroom is now a true art form more than ever.

The process is only as good as the person employing it, whether that's film or digital. The notion that film is somehow more "pure" or "artistic" than digital photography is ridiculous.

But you've otherwise explained it well enough to satisfy my curiosity. I'm just surprised there's enough demand for Kodak to even bother, unless they're charging $20 a roll? I don't know, I haven't bought a roll of film in years.

On the plus side, anybody getting into film these days can buy a used top-of-line camera from yesteryear for a fraction of what it cost new.

I hear ya' on the art part, knew that would be provocative. It's just that after shooting about a million exposures on digital since 1994 and god only knows how much film, I am blown away by what a huge difference there is in what it takes to master either. No matter how perfect you are in the darkroom, no two prints are exactly the same. Where as all you need to do once a digital file hits the Epson is hit how many prints you want and crack a beer open. Night and day difference.

I shoot on a mamiya 645 pro, I picked this kit up for £450 a year ago and I shoot portra. The images I get out of this camera are far superior in terms of detail and resolution than a digital camera within my budget could ever produce. It is expensive to shoot film, but I don't exclusively shoot film, I shoot film when I want next level quality and I love shooting it, the process of it and the anticipation. It's something physical and there is something romantic about it.

I left film when film was still in full swing. Let's see, how much does a roll of 36 set you back these days, along with a really good scanner, lab processing misshaps and scratches. Slides can be beautiful, I shot them for decades, but my Nikon d7200 is a tough competitor to film, and I am spoiled by its incredible image quality!

Rather interesting to hear about the "better quality" of digital. Digital is different from film. It is like comparing the resolution and dynamic range between a watercolor painting and a charcoal sketch....nonsensical. Each has its own look. Each has amdifferent experience of use.

The Davinator: and you don't have to turn on a (damn) computer and stare at yet another LCD screen to do it. Another screen like you TV, your cell phone, your tablet, the dashboard of your car... life requires you to look at enough screen devices.

You will be staring at a computer more if using film, as film needs to be scanned for any practical use in today's world. Scanning well, to get the very best out of those slides, requires a great amount of time and effort in front of a screen. Then on top of that is the usual Photoshop and Lightroom work. Film does not remove time in front of a computer, or in a car driving to the lab for drop off, and then pick up. Yes you can mail it, but who really wants to do that now. I you only want to print with chemicals and project, then film is great, but limiting.

I never said that digital was better quality, that is very subjective and personal, with no definitive answer. IMO, my d7200 for my purposes, is every bit as good as film, and then some. The ability to work in horrible light, long exposures, retain such wonderful detail and color, having perfect exposures and a lot of other positives, pun intended.....is a real evolution in photography! I enjoy working with a computer, and my time spent on any particular image is much more efficient and intuitive, as I have been using Photoshop for 20 years...and I organize and limit my time spent on a computer per week; I get out doors, run regularly, cycle, time with family and of course enjoy my photography!

I too yearn for the days of Kodachrome. However, from what I can tell, the chemistry of both making that film and processing it was far more difficult and expensive, and required greater precision, than E6 films. Thus it will require many years of sustained film market growth, before they will bring it back, IMHO.

.....honestly I would like to see a new compact film camera similar to a Contax or Ricoh. For that alone I would be more enthusiastic about doing some film photography rather than relying on something ebay with an inflated price for something thats not even being made or serviced anymore.

That is a nice idea but sadly, it probably will not happen for several reasons: 1. There are so many used cameras on the market, most people would buy used. 2. The classic rangefinder cameras of the 1970s were mechanical complexities, which today would require expensive manpower. At the high end, there may be a limited market. Leica still sells their brand new rangefinder M-A, and the Nikon F6 is still available. But both Leica and Nikon must have the issue that so many of their classic cameras are still out there in good condition, there must only be a few buyers for new product. However, look at mechanical watches. People gobble up brand new Rolex, IWC, etc., even though there are thousands of older ones in circulation. (But watches are man-jewelry, cameras are not.)

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.